Preparation and<i>in vitro</i>release behaviour of 5-fluorouracil-loaded microspheres based on poly (L-lactide) and its carbonate copolymers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A modified oil-in-oil (o/o) emulsion solvent evaporation technique was adopted to prepare 5-fluorouracil (5-Fu)-loaded poly (L-lactide) (PLLA) or its carbonate copolymer microspheres. The disperse phase was a drug:polymer solution using a solvent mixture of N, N-dimethylformamide (DMF) and acetonitrile and the continuous phase was liquid paraffin containing 1–10% (w/v) Span 80®. The effects of preparative parameters, such as the composition of the inner oil phase, drug:polymer ratio, polymer concentration and agitation rate, on 5-Fu entrapment efficiency and microsphere characteristics were investigated. By introducing 25% (v/v) DMF into the inner oil phase, microspheres with high drug entrapment efficiency and an ameliorated burst effect were achieved. Using this modified method, microspheres with various particle sizes could be produced with a high 5-Fu entrapment efficiency (about 80%). In vitro drug release tests showed a burst release of 5-Fu from PLLA microspheres, followed by a sustained release over 50 days. In the case of poly (L-lactide-co-1,3-trimethylene carbonate) (PLTMC) and poly (L-lactide-co-2,2-dimethyl-1,3-trimethylene carbonate) (PLDTMC), the drug release could be continued for over 60 days.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".